MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746971357 · doi:10.29063/ajrh2017/v21i2.3

COMMENTARY: Promoting Early Detection of Breast Cancer and Care Strategies for Nigeria

2017· article· en· W2746971357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Agatha Ogunkorode, Lorraine Holtslander, June Anonson, Johanna E. Maree

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Reproductive Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineDiseaseHealth careFamily medicineDeveloping countryCancerStage (stratigraphy)Developed countryBreast cancer awarenessGynecologyPopulationIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women particularly in developing countries like Nigeria, with high mortality, and economic costs. Worldwide, it is predicted that more than one million women are diagnosed with breast cancer, and more than 400,000 will die from the disease every year. A comparative integrative review of the literature from Nigeria and Canada showed that in Canada, there is positive association between wide spread education, early detection, the disease stage at diagnosis, and survival rates. In Nigeria, presentation with the advanced stage of the disease makes survival very low. The primary factors responsible for the late presentations are lack of awareness, misconceptions about breast cancer causes, and treatment outcomes. It is recommended that guidelines and policies about breast cancer early detection, care strategies, and ongoing management pathways be produced, disseminated, and adopted. The guidelines will assist practitioners and patients in making informed decisions and choices about the most appropriate health care for their specific clinical situations. The implementation of evidence-based guidelines will most likely help to improve care processes, the quality of clinical decisions and patient treatment outcome. (Afr J Reprod Health 2017; 21[2]: 18-25).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Reproductive HealthSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207